The rehabilitation attempts of Joe Lieberman here on DU are laughable.

[trumad]

I'll say by the end of Q1-2007 Joe will put his final knife into the back of the Democratic Party.

Bookmark it!

[blossomstar]

1. True that and bookmarked here!

[Richard Steele]

2. LAUGHABLE is ONE word for it.

Joe has shown what he really is, and so he shall remain
in my heart and mind forever.

[ThomCat]

17. delete.

Innane post

[BrightKnight]

18. PRACTICAL, PRAGMATIC, REALISTIC, INTELLIGENT...

Hold your nose, get in line, and act in the interest of the party.

[Richard Steele]

21. Sure! You say "jump", I say "how high...

...WOULD I HAVE TO BE?"

Please don't tell me what to do, or how to feel.

(BTW, you misspelled "intelligent")

[BrightKnight]

23. Inflaming anti Lieberman sentiment is intelligent for the Repugs.

I am not sure why anyone here would want to do it. Do you expect him to quit because we doesn't like him? Perhaps we could impeach him.

[Bucky]

29. I hope you are not sharing insight into why we might be arguing like this after our victory.

It's sad when Democrats attack Democrats a week after a huge victory. It'd be worse still if Republicans could be the ones stirring us up into these sorts of lathers. I guess I just assume everyone on this board is sincere and a real Democrat, rather than a lurker posing as one of us.

[zanne]

3. I agree.

I actually prefer someone like Tom Delay over someone like Joe Lieberman. At least I know where Tom Delay is coming from.

[w13rd0]

5. Well...

...we know where Joe is coming from now too...

So you really can't use that as an excuse anymore.

[zanne]

7. You know where Joe is coming from?

Clue us in, would you?

[SoCalDem]

4. I have my fingers crossed about Joementum

He's in the catbird seat for 2 years.. I am counting on a pick up of enough seats in the senate, so he once again regains his insignificancy :)

until then he's just one-of-51, and hopefully he's thinking about how he wants "history" to treat his memory when he's gone.

[cali]

6. If by final knife you mean switch to the pukes, no he won't

I'm sure Joe is proficient at elementary math; the pukes have 21 seats up in 2008 and the dems have 11. There's a very strong chance we'll increase our majority in the Senate. Why would Joe take that chance, just for a year or so, when he can get what he wants.

[TwilightZone]

10. Exactly.

All of this wringing of hands and incoherent yelling about Lieberman leaving the party is wasted effort. He knows where the power is and where it will continue to be after the '08 elections. He's not going anywhere.

[Greyhound]

8. Either way, the very definition of a DINO.

70% support from re:puke:s and <30% from Democratic voters.

[bryant69]

9. I think that's pretty likely

I mean he'd be pissing away his career at that point - but since he's apparently perfectly safe up in Connecticut, I suppose it doesn't matter.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ROakes1019]

11. Breaking News CNN

Joe Lieberman will be the chairman of the homeland security committee. It's over. Let it drop. If he were to go Repug, the Senate would be 50-50 and he would not be assured a chairmanship. Joe thinks he's funny and was just kidding around about needing the Dems to be nice to him. Like or not, we need him on the Dem side and, in everything but the Iraq war, he votes liberal. So stop the anger at Joe Lieberman. I dislike him, too, but he played politics and won. Thank heavens for our side.

[Alexander]

13. "Everything but the Iraq war"? Total bull.

He stuck his nose in Terri Schiavo, said hospitals should be allowed to deny rape victims emergency contraception, flirted with wanting to privatize Social Security, didn't want to filibuster Roberts or (Sc)Alito, and has voted like a Republican on all Homeland Security issues.

You didn't receive any of that petty cash from Joe's campaign, by any chance, did you?

[Kelly Rupert]

24. Oh, really?

http://ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

He's votes solid Democrat. Can we stop with the circular firing squad yet? I thought we only did that when we lost elections.

[Alexander]

32. What you cited is over two years old.

Can you say "Military Commissions Act"? Half the things I mentioned were post-04 election.

Nice to see the Lieberman apologists are now digging up old, outdated voting records to defend their guy.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

31. It's called a "joke". You should try it sometime.

Wow, I'm "evil", a "prick" and a "class A jackanapes", whatever that means. Talk about insults.

I was being facetious. Do you know what that means? Or is every single word posted on a message board supposed to be taken 100% seriously?

[Bucky]

38. Well we agree about something then.

Some things on the internet are not to be treated seriously.

If you're gonna switch from ideological scorn to humor, you might wanna defuse you're "insult" humor with a smily next time. It's not the first time I've seen you dishing out harsh words at those you disagree with.

[Alexander]

43. I didn't feel a smiley was appropriate. So sue me.

If someone's defending Lieberman at this point, they are either an apologist for him or they don't have a clear command of the facts.

I was suggesting he was an apologist, at worst. It was maybe 5% serious. Do I seriously think he's on Joe's payroll? No. But claiming "it's just Iraq" and showing an old voting record now is bunk, Joe's flip-flopped on almost all social and economic issues over the past 3-4 years.

If my words seem harsh, it's because we hear enough right-wing propaganda from the government and the MSM echo chamber. I'm really not too thrilled about seeing more of it here.

[Richard Steele]

22. Pfft. Enough of this "he's liberal on everything but Iraq" BS, please?

It's not true, and we all know it.

[Kelly Rupert]

26. How so?

100% NARAL sounds liberal to me. So does 86% NEA. So does a 0% Christian Coalition rating. So does 100% APHA. So does 100% AFL-CIO. Are you willing to throw him away because you don't like his votes on Iraq? That's awfully short-sighted.

[w4rma]

30. He is pro-big buisness on economics, from what I can tell.

Also, no progressive does this:

"Finally, as everyone knew would happen, Joe received around 70% of the Republican vote, and his field effort focused on bringing his base out to the polls, helping the Republican governor and all three incumbents in hot races."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/14/122820/27

[Ms. Clio]

33. See post 13 above

See also this post today about Lieberman's voting record, which is against the Dems 60-70 percent of the time.

Condi confirmation (against; liar)
Gonzales confirmation (against; torturer)
Class action lawsuit reform (against; loss of right to court trial)
Bankruptcy bill (against; bad for middle class and poor)
Negroponte confirmation (against; death squads)
Cheney energy bill (against; oil comany profits)
CAFTA (against; bad for workers)
CAFTA (2nd vote; against; bad for workers)
Ohio vote certification (against; stolen election)
Firearm manufacturer immunity (against; big business protection)
Confirmation of radical judges (against; compromise filibuster away)
Tax Relief act of 2005 (against; tax cuts for rich)
Deficit reconciliation act (against; spending cuts for poor)
Alito cloture (against; by DUer's request at the time..normally I do not score cloture)
Alito nomination (against; asshole Bushbot)
Tax cut protection (against; favors the rich...do these people ever stop?)
Extend Patriot Act (against; anti-civil liberties)
Raise limit on public debt (against; bad for our future)
Flag burning Amendment (against; not necessary and against 1st Amendment)
US-Oman FTA (against; ANOTHER "free trade" agreement?)
Roberts Confirmation (against; those blue eyes aren't fooling anyone)

Zodiak Ironfist's post also includes a useful graph.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2712104&mesg_id=2712753

I would also add his involvement in ACTA.

[Alexander]

46. This is all from early 2004 and before.

The Joe Lieberman we're referring to is not the same Joe Lieberman of 2 years ago.

Even the 2004 Joe Lieberman isn't the same as the 2000 Joe Lieberman.

A politician changing stripes this much, generally going from center-left to right-leaning authoritarian, is going to get scorn from the party he belonged to - the Democratic Party - which has a fairly liberal base.

[H2O Man]

12. Lieberman

is a prime example of a new manifestation known as "neoliberals." As the republican party rejects some of the more extreme neoconservatives, more and more of their type will put on a democratic hat.

[AntiFascist]

20. Exactly, already debating whether MORE troops should be sent...

to Iraq. Next they'll be supporting an attack on Iran.

[H2O Man]

36. I saw that Joe's

favorite corporate media source -- Fox News -- was reporting that Iran may be training the next Usama bin Laden.

[AntiFascist]

39. Right-wing hardliners like Netanyahu aren't helping matters any...

according to newsmax.com:

"It’s 1938, and Iran is Germany,” Netanyahu said, "and Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.”

...

Netanyahu says the threat cannot be taken lightly and that Ahmadinejad is "preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state” through the force of nuclear weapons.

[Kelly Rupert]

27. What? Lieberman's not neoliberal.

He's only rated 36% by the Cato Institute. Don't bandy around terms unless you know what they mean.

[H2O Man]

34. Clown

[Cha]

45. elmer fudd

:+

[Ms. Clio]

35. Yes, the Cato Institute is the final arbiter on such questions

[Kelly Rupert]

40. When it comes to whether a candidate is neoliberal,

I would be inclined to trust a neoliberal organization.

[Ms. Clio]

41. You're the first person I've ever read who described Cato as "neoliberal"

I've always heard it described as libertarian. And using your logic, then, when it comes to whether an organization is a hate group, I would be inclined to trust another hate group ?

[H2O Man]

42. Indeed, it is libertarian. n/t

[Individualist]

14. You say laughable, I say disgusting.

[Solly Mack]

15. Lieberman will do whatever best promotes Lieberman

[Bonobo]

16. LOSERMAN BETRAYED PARTY; APOLOLGISTS COVER FOR HIM!!

This needs to be said! Lieberman spit upon the will of the Democratic party and subverted the electoral process that has been established.

But some who are not intellectually honest choose to ignore this and instead pick upon a party that represents some of the very best ideals of humanity.

And what is their justification? Merely political expediency.Sickening. :puke:

[Bucky]

28. Enough with the McCarthyism. I don't like Lieberman, but I dislike Republicans more

It's hard to see how he subverted the electoral process by winning an election. He subverted the Democratic party, certainly. And no one really likes losing an election to an apostate (and a smarmy one at that). But if you have a problem with Lieberman being in the Senate or voting to organize with the caucus of his choice, then you have a problem with majoritarian democracy.

He won and he did so playing it by the book. I don't like the results, but a grown up learns to defer to the people. There's nothing wrong with political expediancy. Compromise is the stuff of republican democracy; nothing gets done without it. Sometimes it's distasteful, but without it we're in no better shape than Baghdad today. If you have a problem in cutting a deal with him, you have a problem with every successful Democrat in our party's history.

Failing to keep Lieberman in the caucus means Republican control. Only a fool would think political purity is worth that price.

[Bonobo]

44. Okay, Bucky, you're right, but it sucks...

This message board is sometimes just for venting and I needed to vent BIG with Sore Loserman.

But I get VERY irritated with the inflammatory rhetoric from some posters who never stop with their Nader/Green stuff.

[KitSileya]

19. I agree that he's disgusting, and a snake.

So I say use him, then discard him. In the 110th Congress, we need him to get a majority in the Senate, so give him some treats, but make it clear that we expect him to support our legislation. Sen. Reid, if I'm not much mistaken, will be Senate majority leader, and he needs to herd those 51 cats like a sheepdog. Don't let any of them scatter across the aisle on important votes, including Lieberman, and be ready to play this term's nuclear card of letting the senator from CT jump the aisle should he refuse. If we lose important votes because Lieberman votes against us, we will be in much better position when it comes to laying blame if we do not fully control the Senate - we will be able to tell people "see, we wanted to increase minimum wage/preserve ANWR/withdraw from Iraq/stop torturing/tax the rich and give to the poor/stop corruption in Congress, but the Republicans with Cheney in front voted against it." That will go over better than, "we wanted to XYZ, but we couldn't muster enough votes among our own".

Then, when we get a majority not dependent on him, either if one or more of the current Republican senators resign, or in 2008, throw him by the wayside and tell him that we need to support our own senators, and give them the chairmanships.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. Right.

Because we all just love Joe sooooooooo much.

Please return to your regularly scheduled political masturbation.